Yes allegedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Printable View
Yes allegedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Yes allegedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Indeed I agree about the lack of sourced material but some people here seem happy to leap to the first conclusion. This jumps out as odd and I'd like more information: They also said Le did not comply with deputy orders, did not drop the object, and that tasers “were not effective.” So he was allegedly given orders, tasered and then shot after tasers failed? Sounds odd.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/off-duty-...152811424.html
And here's 21st century lynching. Coming home with a black boyfriend!
She wasn't even coming home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/court...28c395941.html
How the hell did that get two hung verdicts?
racism + Oklahoma. The kid was mixed. I'm surprised the prosecution managed 2 hung juries.
To add more WTF, the wife (also an officer) tried to cover and was also arrested, yet SURPRISE, was never charged.
All you need is 1/12 Lewks.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Thought you could convict on 10/12 if the judge permits it?
I'm not aware of any such rule but if there are any jurisdictions which do have one, it would not apply for capital charges. Murder has to be unanimous.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
My mistake that's a British thing, didn't realise the States was different on that. Even for murder the judge can request a majority ruling of upto 10/12 in case there's one obstructionist on the jury. If the defendant is found guilty on a majority verdict the judge will then ask the jury if there were any dissenters so that it is known some found the defendant innocent (but not enough), if the verdict is innocent then that is not asked so as not to cloud the innocent verdict.
The best our judges can do is replace a juror if they feel they aren't putting an actual effort into deliberating or if they plan to exercise their jury nullification rights. But it's a rare thing to happen.
I've never understood how juror replacement works. Surely an alternate juror hasn't sat through the trial so how are they supposed to judge the facts?
Alternative jurors, when picked, sit through the entire trial, when it's time to deliberate they are separated until/if needed.
Wow jury duty is bad enough at the best of times if you have to put your life and work on hold weeks on end to sit through a trial. To do so without even being a proper jury member would be bloody frustrating I imagine.
I was an alternate once. Had to do everything up to deliberations about guilt. Got to skip that part.
Very VERY few jury trials last more than a week.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://www.11alive.com/news/investig...erer/437061710
More of Lewk's heroes going after people for no good reason and not paying any price for their behavior. And note, the problem is not that some cops are opportunistic assholes; there are plenty of those in every profession. The problem is police departments continue to stand behind the opportunistic assholes. And the Lewks and Rands of the world continue to make excuses for both.
We're talking about murder trials here. I would have thought some of them would last more.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Nothing to do with cops being assholes, the whole system is at fault there. Fix the system don't just fix an individual whose made mistakes (which will inevitably happen under any system). Field sobriety tests are one thing and given the unfortunate lack of a breathalyser for drugs it makes sense for an officer who has probable cause to think somebody is DUI to arrest them on the scene. The alternative is to do nothing and let people die due to DUI collisions and it is the people who are DUI-ing who cause this mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But while there is no breathalyser there are blood tests and within a day or a couple of days max the blood test results should be back. There is absolutely no reason for charges to be hanging over somebody for six months if the blood test was clear. There is no reason for charges to even be filed before the results are back.
The worst part there is not the officer on the scene it is what happened afterwards that charges were filed and not dropped for months. Charges should never have been filed without a positive blood test on top of the failed field sobriety test.
Road-side drug tests are now common-place in the UK, where a swab is taken from the inside of the mouth of the suspect, and used on a small piece of kit within which a chemical reaction in minutes denotes whether the suspect has imbibed either cannabis or cocaine.
Positive results mean the suspect is taken straight back to the custody suite where a blood sample is taken for a precise reading, which is then used for the prosecution.
In the same way that a roadside breathalyser here is only an indication of being over the prescribed limit for alcohol. A positive roadside breathalyser result means the suspect is taken straight into custody where a much more sophisticated intoximeter takes a double measurement of a sample of breath, the lower of the two measurements being used for prosecution.
Far more sensible system :up:
Was not aware of the road-side test. Should be adopted across the pond if it works well. :up:
You know that most of the work/time goes into the pre-trial phase?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes, why it can take a long time on bail before reaching trial. But a trial especially if contested with many witnesses on either side can last over a week.
Except people keep insisting all cops are good and none are assholes, and treating them as such, which is particularly worrying since the system actively protects assholes rather than weed them out.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Also i thought you said earlier that the system is fine just bad apples are the problem but now the bad apples are to be expected (which I agree with) and the system should be fixed? I mean I'm definitely agreeing there's an institutional problem but I'm surprised you agree now.
Also we have the same system with swabs here but pretty recently only.
It would have to be a pretty complicated trial. Well, or it involves a lot of separate and significant charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Long murder trials are typically around 60 minutes long with commercial breaks.
The majority of murder cases don't play out like on TV. Nor do most defenders put the kind of energy in that would cause long trials.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You know I don't support this in any way shape or form right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So fry 'em, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Who has said that? Nobody has that I can see, and I don't see anything here to say that the officer is an asshole, he seems to be doing a difficult job with inadequate tools (eg why not use proper tests - that won't have been his decision).Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I've been saying that all along! I've been making suggestions all along like routine use of video recordings etc to improve the system rather than jump to presuming guilt unless proven innocent the second a trigger is pulled.Quote:
Also i thought you said earlier that the system is fine just bad apples are the problem but now the bad apples are to be expected (which I agree with) and the system should be fixed? I mean I'm definitely agreeing there's an institutional problem but I'm surprised you agree now.